Moderators decision on Cde. Maratty’s indefinite forum ban

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie. (p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

[lindanesocialist]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

Well cdes Mod 1 and 3 surely LBird needs to make an act of contrition

[lindanesocialist]

Who wrote this?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Guidelines & Rules: Unfortunately, currently infringements of the G&R are dealt with in an ad hoc manner leading to inequality of treatment and a string of queries and complaints to the forum Admin/Internet Dept. challenging our commitment to DPD. This ad hoc approach then inflames and escalates the situation leading to acrimony and threats of resignation.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         I could post the whole document if necessary

[lindanesocialist]

Oh bugger, I will. By Mod1 Before he was Mod 1 Draft report on forum moderation   Author: Brian Johnson Swansea Branch   Working Purpose: Drawing attention through a key line of enquiry to: The form of moderation on theparty forum is seriously flawed in respect of applying a coherent policy on moderation procedure andthis lack of a coherence is at risk of bringing the party into disrepute in respect of its commitment tofreedom of expression and Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD). Please note that when italics in boldare used this is to draw the reader's attention to cause for concern and possible recommendations toaddress these concerns.   Party Forum Background: Internet forums are unique in their particular form of communication andare generally open for public discussion and scrutiny and subsequently require moderation to ensure theGuidelines and Rules (G&R) are not breached to the detriment of the discussion. The party forum wasset up by Cde Darren Poynton when it was decided that the party required its own website rather thanrelying on the WSM Forum which was found to be wanting in many respects regarding content ofpostings, trolling and abuse.   It should be noted that when the party website went live Cde Poynton had insufficient experience offorum moderation. And although it was several weeks before other members stepped forward to helpout in this role they too also lacked sufficient experience of this role. Another handicap which was notyet apparent was the moderators lacked a written code of conduct and the current brief description ofthe role of a moderator is ambiguous to say the least (see below). And although the G&R are prettyexplicit concerning infringements, in the absence of a code of conduct there is the danger of an overreliance on the G&R and this over reliance developing into the only point of reference for resolvingdisputes. See here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/forum-rules-and-guidelines In short:Discussion by the moderators can tend to become centred on the G&R and not on how a moderatortreats, mistreats or ignores infringements  Part two to follow  A document from Mod3 before he was Mod 3  

[alanjjohnstone]

I wear a moderators hat to apply moderation to this forum. But as this is a general debate about the pros and cons of the forum's moderation i will contribute as non-moderator.  

Quote:

Mod1 has  declared he detests Vin, as has Mod 3 and both refuse to call him a comrade.  How can we expect a fair decision from them.

You can expect a fair decision, comrade, because there exists a third moderator. As soon as Cde. Maratty sought a review from the new moderators, it was immediately embarked upon, but sadly its conclusion was not to his satisfaction. Because the moderators chose to operate, as the courts call it, "in camera", it is unfortunate that the motives and actions of individual  moderators can be speculated upon and their impartiality questioned . The moderators are currently exchanging daily several emails to try and tackle the problem of moderation. It is not too easy to accomplish. To offer an instance of the difficulty – LBird and Robbo as non-members of the Party but are regular posters but neither have recourse to a full appeals procedure eg to the EC, conference and party poll that a party member such as Cde. Maratty can pursue, if he so wishes, and has been urged to do. Such inequality among forum users requires to be resolved and will be in the due course of time.  I am confident that feedback from the forum users of any new proposals will be a part of this.    

[SocialistPunk]

Well you did point out the corrupting influence of power when you mentioned the book Animal Farm…mwahahahahaha!!

[SocialistPunk]

lindanesocialist wrote:

Mod1 has  declared he detests Vin, as has Mod 3 and both refuse to  call him a comrade.  How can we expect a fair decision from them. If you are a socialist you do not use your position to obstruct other members you happen to dislike. For some reason it makes a difference who said what before they make a move to moderate

As moderator3 I have made no such comment. As a moderator I am doing a job for the Party and as such I keep to the issue at hand. My personal feelings about a person do not enter into consideration.It seems as though you are accusing me and Brian of using our Party post to carry out some sort of personal vendetta against Vin. Would you care to make an official complaint to that effect?You and Vin have bleated on about Party members conspiring against him once too often.It's time to put up or shut up!

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie.

No, it's 'undead', so it's neither, that's the bloody point. Neither true nor false. Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Or psychology, of the non-cod variety.

TK wrote:

(p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

p.s. You definitely need to brush up on your insults, Vin Maratty, you ain't.

[Bijou Drains]

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

LBird wrote:

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Good to see that satire's not dead

Good to see that zombie's not dead.

A zombie couldn't be, that's the bloody point. If it's dead it's not a zombie.

No, it's 'undead', so it's neither, that's the bloody point. Neither true nor false. Logic isn't your strong point, is it? Or psychology, of the non-cod variety.

TK wrote:

(p.s. you probably need to brush up on your witty retorts, Oscar Wilde, you ain't)

p.s. You definitely need to brush up on your insults, Vin Maratty, you ain't.

I hate to point out the falacy of your comments, however you originally made the comment that it was good to see that zombie's not dead, when I point out that a zombie couldn't be dead, you state that its "undead" which as you point is neither (presumably by this you mean it is neither dead or alive). This actually backs up my statement that a zombie couldn't be dead ( Ididn't say it was alive, just not dead). You then claim that this proves that my logic in pointing out that it couldn't be dead, is flawed. You can't even construct a logical sentance about the nature of zombies, and you expect other readers to take you and your "logic" seriously. Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

[Young Master Smeet]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

To offer an instance of the difficulty – LBird and Robbo as non-members of the Party but are regular posters but neither have recourse to a full appeals procedure eg to the EC, conference and party poll that a party member such as Cde. Maratty can pursue, if he so wishes, and has been urged to do. Such inequality among forum users requires to be resolved and will be in the due course of time.  

I sincerely hope not.  Non members should certainly not have the same rights and privileges as members: the forum belongs to the members of the party.  

[alanjjohnstone]

Quote:

the forum belongs to the members of the party.

And, of course, non-members, are only mere guests and simply visitors at the sufferance of the party who claim the debate as its own property to end whenever we see fit…if we give the gift of discussion, we can withdraw it as we will, at any time, for any reason, because it's our ball and we can take it back if we want to… if they don't like it they can lump it …we owe those people we invite to engage with us absolutely nothing…No, we won't treat the forum as something we created as part of the intellectual commons to share with non-members (and ex-members) even if they follow an accepted understanding and its agreed rules. We, The Party rule…they obey…We Party members are the privileged…How welcoming and inclusive we are with such an attitude to those who seek to have a dialogue with ourselves…always on our own terms, it seems.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jl1r7E3e-ks&index=47&list=RDSxsSEwsn5-Y

[LBird]

Tim Kilgallon wrote:

Anyway, how do you know these "facts" about zombies, I thought facts had to be established by the workers through a democratic process, when did the workers have a vote about zombies?

How else would 'facts' be established?I know that you won't answer this epistemological question, because that is at the heart of our disagreements. I'm a Democratic Communist who seeks to give a democratic political, philosophical and scientific basis to the social production of knowledge by class conscious workers. And you don't.

TK wrote:

As to the cod psychology, I have never psychoanalysed a fish, however I have had a few thoughts about the psychological profile of a certain feathered animal

Yeah, it's always the 'method' of the 'elite' who can't account to workers why workers can't politically control their production: to question the 'psychology' of dissidents who question the so-called 'scientific' basis of 'elite knowledge production' and 'expert control'.I'll leave you to your all too 'few thoughts'.

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

Quote:

the forum belongs to the members of the party.

No, we won't treat the forum as something we created as part of the intellectual commons to share with non-members (and ex-members) even if they follow an accepted understanding and its agreed rules. We, The Party rule…they obey…We Party members are the privileged…

Quite right too.  Enough of this "thin red line" crap: those who aren't with us are against us…

[Young Master Smeet]

Of course, that protection for Party members means they are accountable to the membership of the party as well.

[Young Master Smeet]

Our house, our rules: very common on the intrwebs.  It's more that I object, though, to treating party members the same as non-members: people who have taken the step to join should see some benefit from it (and enjoy the protections of rules 29 and 31).  Else why bother having a party?After all, this forum is part of our propaganda, we organise it to get our case across,not as a cosy club for non and ex members.

[Author]

Posts